Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The objective of this prospective study is to demonstrate the challenges faced by business organizations while adapting to the new digital landscape. The idea is to assist in breaking down the complex process of digital transformation and strengthen the management perspective in the area. The study argues how manufacturing exporting firms could develop a digital transformation strategy that includes a different aspect of the strategy tailored to the nature of the Indian exporting firms. Dealing with different aspects of digital transformation, the study discusses different perspectives such as core competencies, internal drivers of digital transformation (IDDT) and external drivers of digital transformation (EDDT), enablers of digital transformation (EDT), new capabilities required and strategic imperatives of digital transformation. Synthesizing digitalization through these lenses can help in developing and implementing a successful digital transformation strategy.

Keywords

Digitalization Indian manufacturing and exporting firms firm capability drivers of digital transformation technological disruption

Introduction

The emergence of increasingly powerful digital technologies and digital infrastructure has transformed and is continuing to transform the organizations, business processes and corporate cultures with innovative processes, promotional models and services with time (Tekic & Koroteev, 2019). Digital operations are like eye candy for every business organization, irrespective of their nature and size. The digital revolution is rapidly transforming global trade, thereby altering the export competitiveness of developing countries and the impact of growing digitalization on India’s exports, using both sector- and firm-level analyses (Banga & Banga, 2020; Rana et al., 2021). The greatest challenge for a society in the twenty-first century is to keep pace with knowledge and technical expertise (Rana et al., 2022). These are necessary for finding, applying and evaluating information for decision-making. Digitalization is the integration of digital technologies, platforms and services and their consumption. The literal meaning of digitalization gives an apparent idea of the development- and technology-dependent world. To synthesize the challenges and scope of digitalization, we need to conceptualize the boundaries of the same. Hence, in general, digitalization means web access and computerization of services, information and promotion for better ease of use. Digital transformation has fundamentally altered consumers’ expectations and behaviours, thus putting pressure on traditional firms and disrupting numerous business sectors. Consumers have access to dozens of media platforms and information, where they have a chance to communicate with firms and other consumers actively and effortlessly. This has enabled them to pass through a rapidly increasing number of touchpoints in their customer journey, many of which are digital (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2021). The objective of this article is to synthesize the impact of digital transformation on Indian manufacturing sectors and see how exporting firms are building their capabilities to overcome the challenges during their digital journey. More specifically, this research identifies digital facilitators—defined as tools, technologies, skills or capabilities—that exporting firms can implement to improve their performance. This is important to understand the impact of digital facilitators on these practices. This study highlights potential contributions in the digital age as a way of potentially answering international challenges faced by exporting firms.

Digital Transformation Challenges

Global marketplaces are trying to identify and innovate new ways of trade promotions and facilitate disruptive interactions among business organizations in the post-COVID-19 landscape (Almeida et al., 2020; Veeramani & Anam, 2021). Traditionally, export promotion councils and global exhibitions have been among the ideal and wide promotional strategies for manufacturing firms (Rana et al., 2017). However, owing to the pandemic, social distancing mandates have disrupted the practices of customer interactions between local customers and multinationals. This has led to a series of debates taking place across the globe and providing solutions to recommence global trade (Wade & Shan, 2020). More interestingly, a majority of these debates are running online through digital meeting applications such as Google Meet, Webex, Zoom and GoToWebinar. Hence, one of the solutions is around either ‘digitalization’ or ‘digital practices. The interesting fact is that it looks easier to use services digitally and measure the role of digitalization for services. How does digitalization help manufacturing firms? What challenges do manufacturing firms face? How can digitalization act as a handy solution for exporting and international business (IB) practices? These questions are yet to be answered. Digital giants, such as Google, Apple, Microsoft and many other companies, with information technology (IT) focus have emerged as market leaders (Samiee, 2020); yet, they need to explore what specific products other than shopping websites and entertainment applications can be developed to support the exporting firms. The question before exporting firms is not what advantage they can take from Internet penetration and digitalization, but how virtual platforms can assist in covering physical distance (Rosenbaum & Russell-Bennett, 2020). Therefore, this study contributes to the debate on the role of digitalization for manufacturing exports. Moving on, these organizations are struggling to define how their new digital strategy fits into their long-term goals. The following section discusses the additional issues they face.

Lack of Dedicated Information Technology Skills

Behind every successful digital transformation is a dedicated, highly skilled IT team. However, building such a team is getting harder (Piroșcă et al., 2021). As more companies pursue new technologies, a labour deficit is developing. According to one recent survey, 54% of the organizations reported that skill shortages were holding them back from pursuing their transformation goals. In particular, they were lacking expertise in cyber security, technical architecture, enterprise architecture and advanced data analytics. One way to avoid this challenge (Lowry et al., 2021; Wade & Shan, 2020) is to consider hiring outside experts and software consultants to supplement your in-house team. In addition, you should focus on better understanding your customers, developing service provider partnerships and slashing development costs through no-code/low-code platforms.

Lack of Organizational Change Management

Outdated organizational structures, inefficient workflows and rigid leadership styles can all impede digital transformation success. This was never more apparent than in 2020 when companies struggled to quickly shift to a remote business model. Simply navigating new tools is hard enough; however, an addition of change resistance to this mix can begin to make the transformation possible (Frennert, 2018; Kohnke, 2017). Fortunately, a focus on organizational change management can help firms prepare their employees for what lies ahead. Instead of just focusing on the technical side of digital transformation, a firm needs to consider the people it directly affects by developing a comprehensive change management plan (Kohnke, 2017; Ribeiro-Navarrete et al., 2021).

Evolving Customer Needs

As an outcome of the recent pandemic, people have realized just how much they can get done from their laptops and smartphones (Shamim et al., 2021). As such, customers are more discerning and demanding than ever before. Resources like touchless checkout options are no longer nice-to-have options. Thus, rather than assuming the customer choices and wants, firms must take time to perform market research. This way firms will be able to find what customers want and what must be done to make competitive advantage in conducting business (Vinod & Sharma, 2021).

Lack of a Defined Strategy

Digital transformation is far more than a buzzword (Rêgo et al., 2021). Yet, it often gets thrown around without any clear definition. This leads companies to forge ahead in murky waters, confident that they need to be moving but not quite sure where they are going. Without a strategy in place, a firm’s transformation could fail to get off the ground (Hanelt et al., 2021). So, a firm asks these questions to itself: what are the company’s goals and priorities? Are they consistent across the organization or are some stakeholders on completely different pages? Take it from us: a little business–IT alignment goes a long way.

Budget Concerns and Constraints

Another issue that arises when you do not have a clear-cut strategy is difficulty setting or sticking to a budget (Bogoviz et al., 2018; Isikli et al., 2018). It is easy to experience scope creep as you respond to customization requests and evolving customer needs. Without a strategy in place, you are bound to make decisions that result in little to no benefit yet increase your budget and timeline. We recommend looking at the long-term goals of your transformation and using these milestones to develop a realistic project plan (Ulas, 2019). To do so, you will need to clearly understand the digital solutions you are implementing as well as the culture you are integrating them into.

Ineffective Data Management

Customer data are one of the pillars of digital transformation. With it, you can gain rich insights into your buyers’ preferences, behaviours and potential future decisions. As you can imagine, the way you capture and organize this data matters (Tabrizi et al., 2019). If you are still working with siloed systems, it can be difficult to consolidate this information to make it centrally accessible. If it is all stored in one data centre, the same may hold. To correct these issues, it is important to pare everything back (Ilvonen et al., 2018). What do you need to know about your customers to serve them effectively? Make a list and use it to guide your data strategy.

Inefficient Business Processes

Do your current business processes reflect the growth you expect your company to achieve? Is your current road map capable of helping you reach your long-term business goals? If not, you may need to adjust workflows, change business rules and leverage data in different ways than you first envisioned when you implemented your legacy systems (Hartley & Sawaya, 2019). This often takes the form of business process reengineering. Ensuring a successful digital transformation, the seven aforementioned digital transformation challenges that are listed might seem overwhelming, but they do not have to mean the end of the road for your project (Soto-Acosta, 2020). Learning how to prepare for, identify and work around these issues is the key.

Accomplishments: Progress Towards Digital Transformation Improvements

Traditional knowledge suggests that when establishing operations in the international market, exporting firms do not possess proprietary advantages such as digital skills, IT and business alignment, and tend to dawdle when entering a very competitive landscape (Bashir & Farooq, 2018; Cahen & Borini, 2020; Dhiman et al., 2020). The exporting firms investigated in this study depict an outstanding performance in the home country and have to replicate and depict the same performance in the international market (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2018; Liou & Rao-Nicholson, 2019). Hence, based on the past literature, this article has identified the various factors that influence the digital transformation of exporting firms in the international markets. A summary of the various factors has been presented, and the narrative focuses on various factors that influence the building process for an exporting firm’s digital transformation, which have been presented in different main categories (or dimensions). While the first dimension is characterized by all the independent variables that include the internal drivers of digital transformation (IDDT), external drivers of digital transformation (EDDT) and enablers of digital transformation (EDT) (Barkema & Drogendijk, 2007; Fichman et al., 2014; Morakanyane et al., 2017; Weerawardena, 2003; Yoo et al., 2010), the second dimension is characterized by all the mediating or intervening variables, which include the new capabilities required for export firms to digitally transform (Alcácer et al., 2016; Brouthers et al., 2016; De la Torre & Moxon, 2001; Liu et al., 2011; Mergel et al., 2019; Yen & Dey, 2019). The third dimension is characterized by all the dependent variables, which include the strategic imperatives of digital transformation and the various areas that are affected as a result (Baral & Verma, 2021; Kagermann et al., 2013; Katsikeas et al., 2019; Kong et al., 2015; Kübler et al., 2017; Leonidou, 2004; Moriset, 2018; Novais et al., 2019; Senyo et al., 2016). Finally, the fourth dimension is characterized by the digital transformation phenomenon of internationalization and exporting firms (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012; Crewe, 2017; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013; Gölzer & Fritzsche, 2017; Kiang et al., 2000; Morgan et al., 2007; Pla-Barber et al., 2011; Rana et al., 2021; Tiwana et al., 2010; Werner, 2002; Wood et al., 2020; Verhoef et al., 2021). The following section provides a summary of the various factors that facilitate the digital transformation of domestic exporting firms in the international market. The following section aims to access the parameters to enhance the performance of Indian manufacturing exporting firms with the use of digital transformation.

Internal Drivers of Digital Transformation

The most fundamental mechanism for any firm to engage in digital transformation occurs in the industry in which they operate. Although embracing digital transformation is not straightforward and includes much to consider before and during the transformation process, the organizations as a whole must adopt a supportive navigating innovation ecosystem in which businesses can flourish. Similarly, redesigning internal structures and improving digital maturity can provide a supportive structure for organizations dwelling on digital transformation. Following indicators were taken under IDDT: navigating innovation ecosystems, redesigning internal structures, improving digital maturity and previous experience. Navigating innovation ecosystems capability is an important factor that allows firms to accelerate the digital transformation process. According to Weerawardena (2003), technological and non-technological innovations can lead to a sustained competitive advantage for a firm. There have been multiple approaches to defining innovation. However, what remains common is that it is something novel or perceived as new, and that it relies on digital technology (Fichman et al., 2014; Yoo et al., 2010). By redesigning internal structures, we refer to the social (human resource, relationships, stakeholders, ethics and norms) and the technical (processes, routines, technology, services, tasks, etc.) aspects of the internal structure of an organization. In the digital transformation process, the social aspects as well as the technical constructs get changed. Our studies consistently find that strategy is the strongest differentiator of digitally maturing companies, which are more than four times as likely to have a clear and coherent digital strategy in place as early-stage companies—80% of digitally maturing organizations versus 19% of companies at early stages of development—hence, firms must focus on improving digital maturity. Digitally maturing organizations also take a longer view on digital strategy: they are twice as likely as early-stage companies to develop these strategies with time horizons of 5 years or more. One dimension is the previous experience of the firm. Barkema and Drogendijk (2007) believe international experience helps companies to benefit from their previous IB experiences and thus has a positive impact on international performance. Perceived behavioural control relies on fundamental control beliefs about resources, opportunities, past experiences and information about others’ experiences. Implications refer to the effects organizations experience as a result of digital transformation (Morakanyane et al., 2017).

External Drivers of Digital Transformation

Digital transformation is a process that is heavily influenced by external drivers like the use of new technologies by stakeholders of public administrations (Mergel et al., 2019). New research identifies digital competition, digital customer behaviour, sharing economy and government trade policies as a variable that should be considered in the adoption of technology (Rana et al., 2018). While experts have a sense of what the potential result of digital transformation might be, they are rarely able to highlight what a digitally transformed public administration might look like. Digital competition, digitally transforming incumbents and achieving high growth are also important, but not at the cost of proﬁtability. Hence, such incumbents face a strong disadvantage when competing against digital entrants. Firms need to transform digitally and conclude that digital transformation occurs in response to changes in digital technologies, increasing digital competition and resulting in digital customer behaviour. Digital technologies can help attain a competitive advantage by transforming the organization to leverage existing core competencies or develop new ones (Liu et al., 2011). Digital consumer behaviour has access to the digital world, which is increasingly opening up a complex yet popular pathway. Among those many pathways, the presence of digitalization and technology has transformed the pattern of consumer behaviour. Shopping modes that once involved face-to-face interaction between consumers and marketers are now coupled with the inclusion of digital services. Technological factors provide a significant change at each consumer data point and help the buyer in evaluating a shopping decision. The convenience and connectedness provided by the digitalization of the traditional platforms promote assimilation, integration across consumer generations, segments and communities (Yen & Dey, 2019). Sharing internationalization of economy ﬁrms is an enhanced representation of what previous studies have theorized on the effects of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on internationalization (Alcácer et al., 2016; Brouthers et al., 2016; de la Torre & Moxon, 2001).

Enablers of Digital Transformation

EDT utilized in this study includes factors such as data analytics, mobile technologies and embedded devices, cloud computing and cyber-physical system. These factors are viewed as essential since they have a considerable impact on the accomplishment of Indian exporting firms.

Data Analytics

The Big data analytics is a firms internal capability, thus continuous training programmes need to be put in place to update skills, as techniques become more advanced (Kübler et al., 2017). The potential opportunities offered through real-time analytics, digital networks and big data are shown to be considerable for empowering firms to make rapid and informed decisions remotely, significantly amending traditional business models, and linking businesses and consumers in new ways (Moriset, 2018).

Mobile Technologies and Embedded Device

Firms can use digitalized technologies, devices and tools as a means to circumvent various barriers, including those about the location and analysis of foreign markets, the identification of overseas opportunities and the communication and interaction with foreign customers, which have traditionally been viewed as seriously hindering company engagement, operation and expansion in international markets (Katsikeas et al., 2019; Leonidou, 2004). The continuous introduction and proliferation of IT and communications devices (e.g., computers, tablets and smartphones) in the past few decades have been the driving force behind digitalization (Katsikeas et al., 2019). Although such technological breakthroughs are expected to proliferate at a faster pace in the future, many people and organizations in the world still do not have access to these technologies. Digitally embedded business processes increase performance benefits from information systems (IS) capabilities, and digital integration with other parties can reduce costs through communication, transparency and monitoring (Nwankpa & Roumani, 2016).

Cloud Computing and Cyber-physical System

Cloud computing (CC) and the cyber-physical system have new smart features based on digital technologies; the advanced robots transform the workplace into a human–machine cooperative working environment, the so-called cyber-physical systems (Kagermann et al., 2013). Substantial advances in electronics and IT in the past two decades have contributed significantly to the increased automation of the manufacturing sector. CC is described by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction (Baral & Verma, 2021; Kong et al., 2015; Novais et al., 2019). Community cloud provides cloud service to a gathering of firms with similar trade aims, security and contract document requirements. CC has been referred to as a technology that can help in scaling IT-related capabilities as a service to the clients who are using the cloud services from the providers and are charged as per the usage (Baral & Verma, 2021; Senyo et al., 2016). CC, cloud storage and technology can make it easier for remote users to access a variety of distributed information resources through connected services.

New Capabilities Required

New capabilities are found to enable digital transformation like IS capability (Nwankpa & Roumani, 2016). The factors, which have been considered in this study, are IT and digital platforms, market entry and localization knowledge, internal enterprise knowledge and competencies. The extant past literature has put much emphasis on studying Internet technology and its advantages, while the exporters were focused on the customer’s use of the technology. As technology advanced, more marketing activities emerged to market goods and services via the Internet. Today, Internet marketing is defined as ‘the use of the Internet as a virtual storefront where products are sold directly to the customer’ (Kiang et al., 2000, p. 383), or as per another view, ‘the strategic process of creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing products for targeted customers in the virtual environment of the Internet’ (Morgan et al., 2007). Spagnoletti et al. (2015, p. 364) define a digital platform as ‘a building block that provides an essential function to a technological system and serves as a foundation upon which complementary products, technologies, or services can be developed’. Studies adopting this view focus on the technical developments and functions that form the foundation upon which complementary products and services can be developed, that is, building on top of the technical core that a platform owner offers and facilitates (Asadullah et al., 2018; Ceccagnoli et al., 2012; Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013; Tiwana et al., 2010). The growth of social media and mobile commerce provides a virtual platform for digital marketing and brand building (Crewe, 2017; Wood et al., 2020). Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the international development of opportunities and the resource limitations of their domestic market often drive them towards investing in international markets. Entry modes are one of the core research topics in the research of international management (Werner, 2002). Many studies have examined the determinants and performance of firm choice among foreign entry modes. Deciding on a suitable foreign market entry mode is also an important consideration in international management research (Pla-Barber et al., 2011; Werner, 2002). Foreign market entry mode choice is one of the most critical decisions that an international ﬁ. makes (Root, 1994). Firms compete and can attain a competitive advantage through their business models (Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2010), which is defined to represent ‘how the enterprise creates and delivers value to customers, and then converts payment received to proﬁts’ (Teece, 2010, p. 173). Digital transformation introduces a new business model by implementing a new business logic to create and capture value (Pagani & Pardo, 2017; Zott & Amit, 2008). Digital transformation influences the whole company and its ways of doing business (Amit & Zott, 2001) and goes beyond digitalization by changing simple organizational processes and tasks. It rearranges the processes to change the business logic of a firm (Li et al., 2018) or its value creation process (Gölzer & Fritzsche, 2017; Verhoef et al., 2021).

Strategic Imperatives of Digital Transformation

Marketing researchers have mainly focused on digital advertising and social media effects, including attribution model developments. Similarly, the strategic management literature has mostly focused on the conceptualization, operationalization and renewal of (digital) business models (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). In IS literature, researchers have traditionally paid strong attention to technical developments regarding the adoption and use of digital technologies and resultant business value (Nambisan et al., 2017; Sambamurthy et al., 2003). However, further, a multidisciplinary discussion is required, given that digital transformation is multidisciplinary by nature, as it involves changes in strategy, organization, IT, supply chains and marketing. It also reflects on the phenomenon and the literature from multiple fields to aid an understanding of digital transformation and to stimulate future research by providing strategic imperatives and presenting a research agenda. Digital resource integration exacerbates the lack of information resource organization and distribution in libraries (Ugwu & Ekere, 2018). Resource integration helps to manage the content of digital collections, Web resources, indexing, full-text database aggregation and other library resources (Rafi et al., 2020). Digital resources are unique to the digital context; for instance, digital agility and digital networking capability partially overlap with the resources of networking and dynamic capability as identified in the strategic management literature (Verhoef et al., 2021). The organizational structure within digital firms is scarce, and digital transformation has several important implications for the organizational structure (Verhoef et al., 2021). The creation of new online or mobile communication channels allows all customers to easily connect with firms, which changes traditional firm–customer interactions (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2016). A variety of digital growth strategies exist for digital firms, but the most prominent growth strategy involves the use of digital platforms (Parker et al., 2016; Verhoef et al., 2021). Although the end goal of new business models as generated by digital transformation will also be to generate revenues, profits and improve investor value (Teece, 2010), here, it is also particularly useful to track intermediate results via process-related metrics to assess how well the new digital business model is creating value (Libert et al., 2016). Especially in the digital transformation phase, intermediate ‘digital’ metrics are valuable, as they provide more fine-grained insights. For many digital platforms, this may include obtaining measures of online sentiment and engagement as well as network co-creation and value sharing. For instance, when judging the success of their app developer network, Apple and Google can benefit from measuring the number of developers creating apps for their app store, the revenues generated by those apps and the customer satisfaction with those apps. The collective assessment of the multiple intermediate metrics shows how well the complex business activity system operates and performs, and where changes are needed.

Discussion and Conclusion

Both digital transformation and digital facilitators globally impact export management practices. The most affected practices are related to the relationship with value chain stakeholders: suppliers, distributors and partners; adapting the offer: product, communication and business model; business intelligence: commercial, technological and competitive watch; the strategic vision, operational adaptation, knowledge management and capitalization. Our study has put forward a focus on strategic and organizational practices. Relying on a three-type categorization—e-business, e-commerce and e-marketing facilitators—it was possible to identify several dimensions where digitalization fosters exporting firms’ export management practices in a differentiated way. The findings of this study reveal that e-marketing facilitators are numerous and impact more or less all export management practices. However, a bigger impact appears for export practices related to openness (networking and business intelligence), strategy (building of a strategic vision and intellectual property management) and developing the company’s offerings through adapting the traditional 4 Ps of the marketing mix: product, promotion, price and place. E-marketing facilitators can lower technological barriers regardless of a firm’s size and resources. While large firms have been the early adopters and beneficiaries of most marketing innovations, an increasing number of SMEs are also rapidly adapting digital innovations to extend their market bases and remain competitive (Dethine et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2013). For example, a recent report revealed that the emergence of online platforms, like Facebook and LinkedIn, offer low-cost options for SMEs to connect with foreign customers and facilitate their internationalization (Dethine et al., 2020; Manyika & Lund, 2016). Digital technologies indeed play an increasingly important role in the search for complementary partners within the overall supply chain (Guidici & Blackburn, 2013). Digital tools also provide an additional channel for increasing knowledge of foreign markets and potential competitors (Cassetta et al., 2020) through a strong process of market, technology and economic intelligence (Igartua et al., 2018; Jardim-Goncalves et al., 2013; Joensuu-Salo et al., 2018; Wasowska, 2017). Finally, from a process optimization viewpoint, digital e-business facilitators such as CC, robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), mobile services, supply chain management (SCM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications serve to enhance internal production processes (Cassetta et al., 2019). They foster companies’ capabilities to improve flexibility in manufacturers’ supply chains, reduce cycle time and deliver products to customers promptly (Cook, 2015; Jardim-Goncalves et al., 2013; Trașcă et al., 2019). Thus, the role of e-business facilitators is rather different from e-commerce and e-marketing because they contribute to changing production and internal management processes, as well as to supporting partners’ integration.

Future Research Directions

The cross-analysis between digital facilitators and export management practices has put forward several findings. This article highlights various impacts according to the type of digital sources (e-commerce, e-marketing and e-business) and export practice considered. Indeed, the most affected export practices are those related to the strategic positioning of companies, the adaptation of their offerings, openness and organization. Future direction lies in exploring the operational practices related to the export process, which have been less affected at present. Moreover, the digital sources with the most global impact are e-business facilitators, as they directly concern a company’s internal functioning and modify its processes as a whole. E-marketing facilitators also have a strong impact but are more focused on practices related to communication and customer relations; thus, scholars doing research in the future can utilize this research gap.

In this new realm, the use of Internet technologies and digital infrastructures in value chains has resulted in both the processes coexisting, even within the same product line, same organization or brand (Kitchen, 2003; Soufani et al., 2006). The use of Internet technologies and digital infrastructures in value chains calls for a digital transformation called digitalization (Parida et al., 2019). Digital value chains have reportedly reduced costs and improved productivity, efficiency and profitability for firms (Parida et al., 2019). This study helps in estimating the effectiveness of current factors and sub-factors through prioritization. Thus, the discussion herein may act as a future enabler for decision-makers (top managements), export firm managers, researchers and academicians to target the most important areas for using digital transformation in export firms. In the future, this discussion will take digitalization towards sustainable growth. Disturbing innovation is a key theoretical concept, based on which we suggest that digital modelling for business model innovation (BMI) is a bridge that integrates the company’s innovative strategic management. Future research is needed to solve problems with stakeholders, technological development and sustainability (Vaska et al., 2021). First, firms need to have the basic knowledge of digital technology to manage relationships with customers effectively. Second, firms must be prepared to change their roles as new players enter the ecosystem. Third, participation in sustainable development projects, new savings and a roundabout economy requires a change in jobs and practices. Fourth, integration skills are still needed by firms to deal with changes in price and environment. The adoption of new assistive technology allows firms to reduce uncertainty in decision-making and hold value from improved customer access and superior service. This study also contributes to future theory development. Our viewpoint is that the current IB theories are a useful starting point to explain the firm’s internationalization and digital transformation process of sharing economy firms. However, there is a need to further extend the theoretical developments and empirical investigations. There are important implications for theory and practice regarding the effects of the sharing economy on the global economy. Trade policy and regulations always influence the structure and dynamics of global value chains (GVCs) (Azmeh, 2019; Curran et al., 2019; Van Assche & Gangnes, 2019), and the nation-state plays a key role in formulating and enforcing policy and regulations on international trade and investment (Horner & Alford, 2019). Trade policy and regulations always influence the structure and dynamics of GVCs (Azmeh, 2019; Curran et al., 2019; Van Assche & Gangnes, 2019), and the nation-state plays a key role in formulating and enforcing policy and regulations on international trade and investment (Horner & Alford, 2019). Additionally, some more managerial implications are as follows: (a) the relationship with value chain stakeholders: suppliers, distributors and partners; (b) adapting the offer: product, communication and business model; (c) business intelligence: commercial, technological and competitive watch; (d) strategic vision; (e) operational adaptation; and (f) knowledge management and capitalization. We find that the right combination of digital resources (i.e., digital technologies) and digital capabilities can make a difference for firms in gaining a competitive advantage in terms of digital export. We show that digital transformation (i.e., digital technologies) needs to be integrated with digital capabilities to foster a firm-level ‘digital competitive advantage’, which we propose as an extension of the examined competitive advantage enabled by IT (Pavlou & El Sawy, 2010). This study provides a useful tool for evaluating the comprehensiveness of current benefit/impact due to digital transformation. The integration of these three constructs—EDDT, IDDT and EDT—will help researchers and marketing practitioners to further grasp the factors influencing the assessment of benefit/impact analysis in the exporting firms. Thus, the integration of the sources of EDDT, IDDT and EDT choice factors with the beneficial outcome is both theoretically appealing and empirically significant.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Alcácer

, Cantwell

, & Piscitello

(2016). Internationalization in the information age: A new era for places, firms, and international business networks? Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5), 499–512.

Almeida

, Santos

J. D.

, & Monteiro

J. A.

(2020). The challenges and opportunities in the digitalization of companies in a post-COVID-19 World. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(3), 97–103.

Amit

, & Zott

(2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.

Asadullah

, Faik

, & Kankanhalli

(2018, June). Digital platforms: A review and future directions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) (p. 248). https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/248

Azmeh

(2019). International trade policy and global value chains. In Handbook on global value chains. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Banga

, & Banga

(2020). Digitalization and India's losing export competitiveness. In Accelerators of India's growth—Industry, trade and employment (pp. 129–158). Springer.

Baral

M. M.

, & Verma

(2021). Cloud computing adoption for healthcare: An empirical study using SEM approach. FIIB Business Review, 10(3), 255–275.https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211012505

Barkema

H. G.

, & Drogendijk

(2007). Internationalising in small, incremental or large steps? Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1132–1148.

Bashir

, & Farooq

(2018). The synergetic effect of knowledge management and business model innovation on firm competence: A systematic review. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(3), 362–387.

10.

Bogoviz

A. V.

, Gimelshteyn

A. V.

, Shvakov

E. E.

, Maslova

E. V.

, & Kolosova

A. A.

(2018). Digitalization of the Russian education system: Opportunities and perspectives. Quality-Access to Success, 19(S2), 27.

11.

Brouthers

K. D.

, Geisser

K. D.

, & Rothlauf

(2016). Explaining the internationalization of I business firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5), 513–534.

12.

Cahen

, & Borini

F. M.

(2020). International digital competence. Journal of International Management, 26(1), 100691.

13.

Casadesus-Masanell

, & Ricart

J. E.

(2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.

14.

Ceccagnoli

, Forman

, Huang

, & Wu

D. J.

(2012). Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263–290.

15.

Cook

(2015). RICS futures: Turning disruption from technology to opportunity. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 33(5), 456–464.

16.

Crewe

(2017). The geographies of fashion. Bloomsbury.

17.

Cuervo-Cazurra

, Luo

, Ramamurti

, & Ang

S. H.

(2018). The impact of the home country on internationalization. Journal of World Business, 53(5), 593–604.

18.

Curran

, Nadvi

, & Campling

(2019). The influence of tariff regimes on global production networks (GPNs). Journal of Economic Geography, 19(4), 873–895.

19.

De la Torre

, & Moxon

R. W.

(2001). Introduction to the symposium. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(4), 617–639.

20.

Dethine

, Enjolras

, & Monticolo

(2020). Digitalization and SMEs’ export management: Impacts on resources and capabilities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(4), 1–20.

21.

Dhiman

, Kumar

, & Rana

(2020). Why export competitiveness differs within Indian textile industry? Determinants and empirical evidence. Review of International Business and Strategy, 30(3), 375–397.

22.

Fichman

R. G.

, Dos Santos

B. L.

, & Zheng

Z. (Eric)

. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 329–353.

23.

Foss

N. J.

, & Saebi

(2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227.

24.

Frennert

(2018). Lost in digitalization? Municipality employment of welfare technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(6), 635–642.

25.

Ghazawneh

, & Henfridsson

(2013). Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: The boundary resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 173–192.

26.

Gölzer

, & Fritzsche

(2017). Data-driven operations management: Organisational implications of the digital transformation in industrial practice. Production Planning & Control, 28(16), 1332–1343.

27.

Guidici

, & Blackburn

(2013). Digitally-enabled network intermediation in the internationalization of SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective. http://www.nemode.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Giudici-Digitally-Enabled-Intermediation-Final.pdf

28.

Hanelt

, Bohnsack

, Marz

, & Marante

C. A.

(2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197.

29.

Hartley

J. L.

, & Sawaya

W. J.

(2019). Tortoise, not the hare: Digital transformation of supply chain business processes. Business Horizons, 62(6), 707–715.

30.

Horner

, & Alford

(2019). The roles of the state in global value chains. In Ponte

, Gereffi

, & Raj-Reichert

(Eds.), Handbook on global value chains (pp. 555–569). Edward Elgar Publishing.

31.

Igartua

J. I.

, Retegi

, & Ganzarain

(2018). IM2, a maturity model for innovation in SMEs. Direction and Organisation, 64(3), 42–49.

32.

Ilvonen

, Thalmann

, Manhart

, & Sillaber

(2018). Reconciling digital transformation and knowledge protection: A research agenda. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(2), 235–244.

33.

Isikli

, Yanik

, Cevikcan

, & Ustundag

(2018). Project portfolio selection for the digital transformation era. In Ustundag

& Cevikcan

(Eds.), Industry 4.0: Managing the digital transformation (pp. 105–121). Springer.

34.

Jardim-Goncalves

, Carlos

, Joao

, Antonio

, & Joao

P. M.

(2013). Reference framework for enhanced interoperable collaborative networks in industrial organisations. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26(1–2), 166–182.

35.

Joensuu-Salo

, Kirsti

, Anmari

, & Elina

(2018). Firm performance among internationalized SMEs: The interplay of market orientation, marketing capability and digitalization. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 31–42.

36.

Kagermann

, Wahlster

, & Helbig

(2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0: Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Forschungsunion.

37.

Katsikeas

, Leonidou

, & Zeriti

(2019). Revisiting international marketing strategy in a digital era: Opportunities, challenges, and research directions. International Marketing Review, 37(3), 405–424.

38.

Kiang

M. Y.

, Raghu

T. S.

, & Shang

K. H. M.

(2000). Marketing on the internet—Who can benefit from an online marketing approach? Decision Support Systems, 27(4), 383–393.

39.

Kim

H. D.

, Lee

, & Lee

C. K.

(2013). Building Web 2.0 enterprises: A study of small and medium enterprises in the United States. International Small Business Journal, 31(2), 156–174.

40.

Kitchen

P. J.

(2003). The rhetoric and reality of marketing: An international managerial approach. Palgrave-Macmillan.

41.

Kohnke

(2017). It’s not just about technology: The people side of digitization. In Oswald

& Kleinemeier

(Eds.), Shaping the digital enterprise (pp. 69–91). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-40967-2_3

42.

Kong

X. T.

, Fang

, Luo

, & Huang

G. Q.

(2015). Cloud-enabled real-time platform for adaptive planning and control in auction logistics center. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 84(1), 79–90.

43.

Kübler

R. V.

, Wieringa

J. E.

, & Pauwels

K. H.

(2017). Machine learning and big data. In Leeflang

, Wieringa

, Bijmolt

, & Pauwels

(Eds.), Advanced methods for modeling markets (pp. 631–670). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-53469-5_19

44.

Lemon

K. N.

, & Verhoef

P. C.

(2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

45.

Leonidou

L. C.

(2004). An analysis of the barriers hindering small business export development. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3), 279–302.

46.

, Su

, Zhang

, & Mao

J. Y.

(2018). Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129–1157.

47.

Libert

, Beck

, & Wind

(2016). The network imperative: How to survive and grow in the age of digital business models. Harvard Business Review Press.

48.

Liou

R. S.

, & Rao-Nicholson

(2019). Age matters: The contingency of economic distance and economic freedom in emerging market firm’s cross-border M&A performance. Management International Review, 59(3), 355–386.

49.

Liu

D. Y.

, Chen

S. W.

, & Chou

T. C.

(2011). Resource fit in digital transformation—Lessons learned from the CBC bank global e-banking project. Management Decision, 49(10), 1728–1742.

50.

Lowry

, Vance

, & Vance

M. D.

(2021). Inexpert supervision: Field evidence on boards’ oversight of cybersecurity. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4002794

51.

Manyika

, & Lund

(2016). Globalization for the little guy. McKinsey Global Institute Report. https://www.ifac.org/content/globalization-littleguy

52.

Mergel

, Edelmann

, & Hug

(2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

53.

Morakanyane

, Grace

A. A.

, & O’Reilly

(2017). Conceptualizing digital transformation in business organizations: A systematic review of literature. In Proceedings of the 30th Bled eConference (pp. 427–444). 10.18690/978-961-286-043-1.30

54.

Morgan

, Pritchard

, & Pride

(2007). Destination branding. Routledge.

55.

Moriset

(2018). Traditional industries. In Ash

, Kitchin

, & Leszczynski

(Eds.), Digital geographies (pp. 210–222). SAGE Publications.

56.

Nambisan

, Lyytinen

, Majchrzak

, & Song

(2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.

57.

Novais

, Maqueira

J. M.

, & Ortiz-Bas

Á.

(2019). A systematic literature review of cloud computing use in supply chain integration. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 129(1), 296–314.

58.

Nwankpa

J. K.

, & Roumani

(2016). IT capability and digital transformation: A firm performance perspective.

59.

Osterwalder

, & Pigneur

(2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley.

60.

Pagani

, & Pardo

(2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67(1), 185–192.

61.

Parida

, Sjödin

, & Reim

(2019). Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability, 11(2), 391–402.

62.

Parker

G. G.

, Van Alstyne

M. W.

, & Choudary

S. P.

(2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton.

63.

Pavlou

P. A.

, & El Sawy

O. A.

(2010). The ‘third hand’: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 443–471.

64.

Piroșcă

G. I.

, Șerban-Oprescu

G. L.

, Badea

, Stanef-Puică

M. R.

, & Valdebenito

C. R.

(2021). Digitalization and labor market—A perspective within the framework of pandemic crisis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2843–2857.

65.

Pla-Barber

, León-Darder

, & Villar

(2011). The internationalization of soft-services: Entry modes and main determinants in the Spanish hotel industry. Service Business, 5(2), 139–154.

66.

Rafi

, Jian Ming

, & Ahmad

(2020). Digital resources integration under the knowledge management model: An analysis based on the structural equation model. Information Discovery and Delivery, 48(4), 237–253.

67.

Ramaswamy

, & Ozcan

(2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93–106.

68.

Rana

, Salwan

, & Anand

(2017). IMRPs and advancing international marketing education. Journal of International Business Education, 12(special issue), 267–290.

69.

Rana

, Saikia

P. P.

, & Barai

M. K.

(2018). Globalization and Indian manufacturing enterprises. FIIB Business Review, 7(3), 167–175.

70.

Rana

, Verma

, Haque

M. M.

, & Ahmed

(2021a). Conceptualizing international positioning strategies for Indian higher education institutions. Review of International Business and Strategy. 10.1108/RIBS-07-2021-0105

71.

Rana

, Prashar

, Baral

M. K.

, & Hamid

A. B. A.

(2021b). Determinants of international marketing strategy for emerging market multinationals. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 16(2), 154–178.

72.

Rana

, Anand

, Prashar

, & Haque

M. M.

(2022). A perspective on the positioning of Indian business schools post COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(2), 353–367. 10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0415

73.

Rêgo

B. S.

, Jayantilal

, Ferreira

J. J.

, & Carayannis

E. G.

(2021). Digital transformation and strategic management: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(4), 1–28.

74.

Ribeiro-Navarrete

, Botella-Carrubi

, Palacios-Marqués

, & Orero-Blat

(2021). The effect of digitalization on business performance: An applied study of KIBS. Journal of Business Research, 126(1), 319–326.

75.

Root

(1994). Entry strategies for international markets. Lexington Books.

76.

Rosenbaum

M. S.

, & Russell-Bennett

(2020). Editorial: Service research in the new (post-COVID) marketplace. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(5), 1–5.

77.

Sambamurthy

, Bharadwaj

, & Grover

(2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263.

78.

Samiee

(2020). International marketing and the internet: A research overview and the path forward. International Marketing Review, 37(3), 425–436.

79.

Senyo

P. K.

, Effah

, & Addae

(2016). Preliminary insight into cloud computing adoption in a developing country. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(4), 505–524.

80.

Shamim

, Siddique

, Noor

, & Hassan

(2021). Co-creative service design for online businesses in post-COVID-19. Journal of Islamic Marketing. 10.1108/JIMA-08-2020-0257

81.

Soto-Acosta

(2020). COVID-19 pandemic: Shifting digital transformation to a high-speed gear. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 260–266.

82.

Soufani

, Vrontis

, & Pontieri’s

(2006). Private equity for small firms: A conceptual model of adaptation versus standardization strategy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 3(3/4), 498–515.

83.

Spagnoletti

, Resca

, & Lee

(2015). A design theory for digital platforms supporting online communities: A multiple case study. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 364–380.

84.

Tabrizi

, Lam

, Girard

, & Irvin

(2019). Digital transformation is not about technology. Harvard Business Review, 13(3), 1–6.

85.

Teece

D. J.

(2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.

86.

Tekic

, & Koroteev

(2019). From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic typology of digital transformation strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683–693.

87.

Tiwana

, Konsynski

, & Bush

A. A.

(2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.

88.

Trașcă

D. L.

, Ștefan

G. M.

, Sahlian

D. N.

, Hoinaru

, & Șerban-Oprescu

G. L.

(2019). Digitalization and business activity. The struggle to catch up in CEE countries. Sustainability, 11(8), 2204.

89.

Ugwu

C. I.

, & Ekere

J. N.

(2018). The role of knowledge management in providing innovative services in university libraries in Nigeria: A structural equation modeling approach. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 67(6/7), 350–376.

90.

Ulas

(2019). Digital transformation process and SMEs. Procedia Computer Science, 158(1), 662–671.

91.

Van Assche

, & Gangnes

(2019). Production switching and vulnerability to protectionism. In Tubler

R. V.

, Verbeke

, & Jankowska

(Eds.), International business in a VUCA world: The changing role of states and firms (pp. 69–87). Emerald Publishing. 10.1108/S1745-886220190000014006

92.

Vaska

, Massaro

, Bagarotto

E. M.

, & Dal Mas

(2021). The digital transformation of business model innovation: A structured literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1), 3557.

93.

Veeramani

, & Anam. (2021). COVID-19 impact on exports of services: Opportunities, challenges and suggestions for India. FIIB Business Review, 10(4), 315–326.

94.

Verhoef

P. C.

, Broekhuizen

, Bart

, Bhattacharya

, Dong

J. Q.

, Fabian

, & Haenlein

(2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122(1), 889–901.

95.

Vinod

P. P.

, & Sharma

(2021). COVID-19 impact on the sharing economy post-pandemic. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 15(1), 37–50.

96.

Wade

, & Shan

(2020). Covid-19 has accelerated digital transformation, but may have made it harder not easier. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(3), 212–220.

97.

Wasowska

(2017). Organisational-level attributes of micro-multinationals. The evidence from European SMEs. International Journal of Management and Economics, 53(1), 84–98.

98.

Weerawardena

(2003). The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(1), 15–35.

99.

Werner

(2002). Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28(3), 277–305.

100.

Wood

, Faulconbridge

, Watson

, & Teller

(2020). ‘Business code/spaces’ in digital service firms: The case of online multinational fashion retailing. Geoforum, 112, 13–23.

101.

Yen

D. A.

, & Dey

(2019). Acculturation in the social media: myth or reality? Analysing social-media-led integration and polarisation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 145(2), 426–427.

102.

Yoo

, Henfridsson

, & Lyytinen

(2010). Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.

103.

Zott

, & Amit

(2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

A Perspective on Digital Transformation Among Indian Exporting Firms

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Digital Transformation Challenges

Lack of Dedicated Information Technology Skills

Lack of Organizational Change Management

Evolving Customer Needs

Lack of a Defined Strategy

Budget Concerns and Constraints

Ineffective Data Management

Inefficient Business Processes

Accomplishments: Progress Towards Digital Transformation Improvements

Internal Drivers of Digital Transformation

External Drivers of Digital Transformation

Enablers of Digital Transformation

Data Analytics

Mobile Technologies and Embedded Device

Cloud Computing and Cyber-physical System

New Capabilities Required

Strategic Imperatives of Digital Transformation

Discussion and Conclusion

Future Research Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References